| Literature DB >> 26653219 |
Feng Xue1, Brandon W Higgs2, Jiaqi Huang3, Chris Morehouse4, Wei Zhu5, Xin Yao6, Philip Brohawn7, Zhan Xiao8, Yinong Sebastian9, Zheng Liu10, Yun Xia11, Dong Shen12, Mike Kuziora13, Zhengwei Dong14, Hulin Han15, Yi Gu16, Jianren Gu17, Qiang Xia18, Yihong Yao19.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) can be an effective treatment option for certain patients with early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting Milan, UCSF, or Hangzhou criteria. However, HCC recurrence rates post-OLT range from 20 to 40 %, with limited follow-up options. Elucidating genetic drivers common to primary and post-OLT recurrent tumors may further our understanding and help identify predictive biomarkers of recurrence-both to ultimately help manage clinical decisions for patients undergoing OLT.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26653219 PMCID: PMC4676172 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-015-0743-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
The summary of clinical information for 21 Chinese HCC patients
| Patient | Recurrent with 24 months± | Sex | Age | Primary tumor grade | Child | BCLC | Primary tumor size (cm) | Criteria (Milan = 1; UCSF = 2; Exceed = 3) | AFP (ng/mL) | MELD | Time of recurrent after OLT (month) | Recurrent tumor organ | HBV (pre-OLT) | HBV (post-OLT) | MULT± | SAT± | ENCAP± | CIRR± | VES± | THROMB± |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCC1* | 1 | M | 48 | III | A | A3 | 5*5*3 | 1 | 2935.9 | 8 | 8 | Liver | Positive | Negative | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HCC4* | 1 | M | 59 | II | A | B | 8*6*5.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 5 | 6.5 | Liver | Positive | Positive | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HCC5* | 1 | M | 67 | II | A | B | 5*4*3 | 1 | >3000 | 2 | 18 | Liver | Negative | Negative | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HCC11* | 1 | F | 57 | II–III | A | B | 0.5–2.5 | 1 | 1581.6 | 2 | 16 | Lung | Negative | Negative | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| HCC2 | 1 | M | 43 | II | A | B | 9*8*6 | 3 | 1461.1 | 21 | 19 | Liver | Positive | Negative | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| HCC3 | 1 | M | 42 | III | B | B | 6*6*2.5, 10*8*4 | 3 | >3000 | 5 | 14.5 | Liver | Positive | Negative | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| HCC6 | 1 | M | 41 | III | A | B | 7*5*4 | 3 | 126 | 4 | 1.5 | Lung | Positive | Negative | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| HCC8 | 1 | M | 42 | III | A | B | 10*10*7 | 3 | >3000 | 5 | 11 | Liver | Positive | Negative | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | N/A | 1 |
| HCC10 | 1 | M | 59 | III | A | A3 | 4*3.5*3.5 | 1 | 1888.2 | 15 | 6 | Liver | Positive | Negative | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patient OLT inclusion criteria included: ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) score 0–2, tumor within Hangzhou criteria and no major vascular invasion or extra hepatic metastases from imaging studies. Exclusion criteria included absolute contradictions of: involvement of the surrounding tissue or distant metastasis, co-current non-curable extra hepatic malignancies, active infection; relative contraindications included: pulmonary hypertension, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, severe renal insufficiency, and mental disorders
AFP alpha-fetoprotein, HBV hepatitis B virus, MULT multiplicity, ENCAP encapsulated, CIRR cirrhosis, THROMB thrombosis, OLT orthotopic liver transplantation, BCLC barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer staging, SAT satellite, VES vessel, Child Child-Pugh score, MELD Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, ±1 Yes, 0 No
* These 4 patients have matched primary and recurrent tumor specimens, normal adjacent tissue from the primary and recurrent tumors, and recipient blood specimens (n = 20 total specimens)
Italicized rows indicate patients who did not experience tumor recurrence post-OLT (n = 12), while non-italicized rows indicate patients who did experience tumor recurrence post-OLT (n = 9)
Fig. 3a left HERC5 distribution of fold change values (log2 scale) for 21 Chinese patient primary tumors, blue line median of patients; right Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves comparing HERC5 low (n = 11) to high expression (n = 10) predicting recurrence; b left HERC5 distribution between normal liver (red; n = 239) and HCC tumors (green; n = 247; 19), blue line mean(normals)-2SD; middle Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves comparing HERC5 low (n = 62) to high expression (n = 180) predicting recurrence; right Same as middle predicting overall survival; c left HERC5 distribution for HCC tumors, blue line median of 65 patients (20); middle KM curves comparing HERC5 low (n = 20) to high expression (n = 24) predicting PFS; right Same as middle predicting overall survival. p log-rank test, p* Cox PH regression model, HR hazard ratio
Univariate Kaplan–Meier (KM) and Cox proportional hazards (PH) models and multivariate Cox PH models for the 21 Chinese HCC patients in this study, HCC patients from Roessler et al. study, and HCC patients from Boyault et al. study
| 21 Chinese patients | Recurrence (n = 21; 9 events) | |
|---|---|---|
| HR (95 % CI) | p value | |
| Univariate Cox PH | ||
| HBV pre-OLT (Yes, No) | 0.285 (0.06, 1.48) | 0.14 |
| Tumor grade (GI, GII GIII) | 1.27 (0.63, 2.01) | 4.50E−02 |
| Age (<49) | 2.33 (0.62, 8.68) | 0.21 |
| Gender (M, F) | 0.29 (0.03, 2.47) | 0.26 |
| | 10.34 (1.28, 83.55) | 0.029 |
| Univariate KM | ||
| | 0.007 | |
| Multivariate Cox PH | ||
| | 7.29 | 0.07 |
| HBV pre-OLT (Yes, No) | 0.26 | 0.3 |
| Tumor grade | 2.41 | 0.27 |
| Age (<49) | 2.08 | 0.42 |
| Gender (M, F) | 1.86 | 0.7 |
Models indicate predictions of survival, PFS, or HCC recurrence with HERC5 mRNA expression and other relevant clinical factors
Tumor grade is defined by American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2010; TNM staging levels are defined by the TNM combinations corresponding to one of five stages (stages I–V)
AVR-CC active viral replication chronic carrier, CC chronic carrier, No no HBV
Fig. 1Somatic copy number amplifications (red), deletions (green), or neutral (yellow) identified in the primary (inner track) and recurrent (outer track) tumors of a HCC1, b HCC4, c HCC5, and d HCC11; e both shared and unique regions of CN amplifications or deletions in 3/4 patients across the genome. Color code is as follows: unique to primary tumors (red amplification; blue deletion); unique to recurrent tumors (brown amplification); and shared by the primary and recurrent tumors (green amplification; purple deletion)
Fig. 2Wnt/β-catenin signaling and directly related pathways affected by genetic-driven and/or gene expression activation or suppression in primary and/or recurrent tumors of 4 HCC patients. Determination of this pathway as most activated using genetic and genomic data is described in “Patients and methods” while other top ranked pathways are presented in Additional file 1: Table S6. Each of the 4 patients’ primary or recurrent tumors are represented as a quadrant on each pathway node
Fig. 4Up-regulated CCL20 expression after HERC5 siRNA knockdown in HCC cell lines. a qRT-PCR analysis of HERC5 mRNA expression in three HCC cell lines 96 h after transfection of negative control siRNA and HERC5 siRNA. Shown is relative expression as copy numbers per 106 endogenous control genes (average of expression levels of ACTB, GAPDH, and UBC); b qRT-PCR analysis of CCL20 mRNA expression in three HCC cell lines 96 h after transfection of negative control siRNA and HERC5 siRNA; c Secreted CCL20 in HCC cell culture medium was measured by ELISA 96 h after siRNA transfection. Standard deviations are represented for each bar
Fig. 5Negative correlation between HERC5 and CCL20 mRNA and the association of Tregs infiltration in PTs of recurrent patients. a Log2 fold changes HERC5 and CCL20 mRNA between and PNATs in the patients who experienced tumor recurrence (n = 9) or the patients who did not (n = 12). A Student’s paired t-test between HERC5 and CCL20 log2 fold change values for the recurrent patients have p = 0.0003 and p = 0.49 for the non-recurrent patients. Negative correlation between HERC5 and CCL20 mRNA is present in the recurrent patients and not observed in the patients who did not recurrent. b Examples of FOXP3 IHC in PTs and PNATs of a recurrent patient and a non-recurrent patient at ×20 magnification (530 × 460 µm in size per field). c FOXP3 IHC scores were calculated using the average numbers of FOXP3 positive stained lymphocytes in10 randomly selected fields at ×20 magnification (530 × 460 µm in size per field) in hepatocellular carcinoma for each sample. FOXP3 IHC score in PTs of recurrent patients (n = 9) were significantly higher than that in non-recurrent patients (n = 9) by Welch’s modified t-test (p = 0.05)